A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21
A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
I would like some insight please on realism in this game. I am very aware that it models in admirable detail the unit compositions and unit elements (vehicles etc). I am aware it is highly realistic on OOB. What concerns me a bit is that from screenshots and some AARs I get the impression that the standard soviet play is enormous defense in depth. Multiple layers of weak units to clog the panzer treads as it were. It is this part that concerns me a bit from a realism standpoint. Did the Soviets really have units behind units behind units? My impression is that they instead had a more conventional front line backed up by reserves.
So my question is is this in fact historical? Or is this a 'gamey' aspect of WITE?
This question matters to me because the appeal of WITE is high due to realism but the time investment is too. So if I'm going to invest the time I want to feel like at the operational line level (rather than unit composition and command level) it is 'realistic.'
Thanks for any input, this is really a question, it is not an 'attack'. I may be offbase and in fact multiple lines are not typical for Soviets in the game or multiple lines were historical (certainly at Kursk for example, but I'm wondering in general).
So my question is is this in fact historical? Or is this a 'gamey' aspect of WITE?
This question matters to me because the appeal of WITE is high due to realism but the time investment is too. So if I'm going to invest the time I want to feel like at the operational line level (rather than unit composition and command level) it is 'realistic.'
Thanks for any input, this is really a question, it is not an 'attack'. I may be offbase and in fact multiple lines are not typical for Soviets in the game or multiple lines were historical (certainly at Kursk for example, but I'm wondering in general).
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
See cpt flam's AAR where I don't use this ahistorical tactics and I'm happy with results.
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
Thanks for replying. Am I correct in thinking the AI uses ahistorical?
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
To a degree, yes. They have the ability to move (teleport?) so many units that they quickly create tough front lines, also backed by deep lines of ants wherever you will start to breakthrough. This is another kind of ahistorical, different to what a human opponent can do in a PBEM.
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
At times, the Soviets did indeed build defense lines at great depth. The best example is the preparation for Kursk where not only the immediate sector was covered with substantive reserves but Stalin kept the equivalent of another Front out of the immediate battle zone simply to cover the road to Moscow in case of a German victory.
But I agree, thats not the endless carpet of weak units that is a frequent approach.
There is a consequence of the retreat/rout mechanics though. If you deploy in a 3-2-1 model (ie 3 units on the front, 2 as an immediate reserve, 1 as a deep reserve) which is a fair reflection of reality then (assuming only one retreat route) if the front breaks, 2 of the units will rout (nowhere to retreat to) and only 1 will retreat normally.
Routs are bad for morale and equipment loss.
In consequence, I've tended to 2-1-1 so if the front units are forced back they retreat normally. A second German victory may trigger routs. But even if you are not simply deploying to cost the Germans MPs, it does tend you to a carpet defense.
But I agree, thats not the endless carpet of weak units that is a frequent approach.
There is a consequence of the retreat/rout mechanics though. If you deploy in a 3-2-1 model (ie 3 units on the front, 2 as an immediate reserve, 1 as a deep reserve) which is a fair reflection of reality then (assuming only one retreat route) if the front breaks, 2 of the units will rout (nowhere to retreat to) and only 1 will retreat normally.
Routs are bad for morale and equipment loss.
In consequence, I've tended to 2-1-1 so if the front units are forced back they retreat normally. A second German victory may trigger routs. But even if you are not simply deploying to cost the Germans MPs, it does tend you to a carpet defense.
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
That's not my understanding or experience. Units with only fully stacked hexes to retreat to will instead retreat 2 or more hexes and take additional retreat attrition.ORIGINAL: loki100
There is a consequence of the retreat/rout mechanics though. If you deploy in a 3-2-1 model (ie 3 units on the front, 2 as an immediate reserve, 1 as a deep reserve) which is a fair reflection of reality then (assuming only one retreat route) if the front breaks, 2 of the units will rout (nowhere to retreat to) and only 1 will retreat normally.
Might be an idea, though, to reduce morale and/or disrupt troops in retreat/rout path. Nobody likes to see their beaten comrades retreating or routing through their lines.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
-Leon Trotsky
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
Unfortunately, deep defenses are essential because of the combination of weekly turns and high German mobility.The defending side is forced to stand around like statues while the attacking side punches a hole and fans out behind them.
I think half weekly turns would help quite a bit, also more restrictions on moving through enemy held territory.
I think half weekly turns would help quite a bit, also more restrictions on moving through enemy held territory.
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
It is not really that ahistorical. Reserves were commonly kept about 10 to 15 miles back in WWII - so one hex behind the front lines. Units that were rotated out of the front lines for rest and replacements (refit) were typically in the 30 to 40 mile range - so three hexes or so back. During much of the war the Soviets were deployed with about half up front, one third in reserve, and one sixth in refit. The Germans did about the same, but they tended towards regimental level rather than the divisional/corps level of the Soviets.
-
- Posts: 4839
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
Hear, hear! I second that; half-week turns would restrict the MP to 50% and give the opponent, especially in a IGOUGO game system a chance to react. A 5mile/hex and half-week game system would make sense for the upcoming WitW, too.ORIGINAL: carlkay58
It is not really that ahistorical. Reserves were commonly kept about 10 to 15 miles back in WWII - so one hex behind the front lines. Units that were rotated out of the front lines for rest and replacements (refit) were typically in the 30 to 40 mile range - so three hexes or so back. During much of the war the Soviets were deployed with about half up front, one third in reserve, and one sixth in refit. The Germans did about the same, but they tended towards regimental level rather than the divisional/corps level of the Soviets.
Klink, Oberst
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
ORIGINAL: Mehring
That's not my understanding or experience. Units with only fully stacked hexes to retreat to will instead retreat 2 or more hexes and take additional retreat attrition.ORIGINAL: loki100
There is a consequence of the retreat/rout mechanics though. If you deploy in a 3-2-1 model (ie 3 units on the front, 2 as an immediate reserve, 1 as a deep reserve) which is a fair reflection of reality then (assuming only one retreat route) if the front breaks, 2 of the units will rout (nowhere to retreat to) and only 1 will retreat normally.
If low morale (Soviet) they usually rout, adding insult to injury as this drops their morale even more. But as most rallied for my turn I still thought it's better to have fully stacked frontline. The Germans had to do a deliberate attacks of 6-9 divisions costing them huge amount of MP to clear a single hex (and due to command penalties for units from different corps, costing them on average 20% of their on-map CV values).
...which means they need more to do less and then you win
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
Are there still such things as low morale Soviets? [:D]ORIGINAL: morvael
ORIGINAL: Mehring
That's not my understanding or experience. Units with only fully stacked hexes to retreat to will instead retreat 2 or more hexes and take additional retreat attrition.ORIGINAL: loki100
There is a consequence of the retreat/rout mechanics though. If you deploy in a 3-2-1 model (ie 3 units on the front, 2 as an immediate reserve, 1 as a deep reserve) which is a fair reflection of reality then (assuming only one retreat route) if the front breaks, 2 of the units will rout (nowhere to retreat to) and only 1 will retreat normally.
If low morale (Soviet) they usually rout, adding insult to injury as this drops their morale even more. But as most rallied for my turn I still thought it's better to have fully stacked frontline. The Germans had to do a deliberate attacks of 6-9 divisions costing them huge amount of MP to clear a single hex (and due to command penalties for units from different corps, costing them on average 20% of their on-map CV values).
...which means they need more to do less and then you win
Probably best to employ various tactics according to circumstances. A thin front allows you to conceal your strength. Three lines of units, be they single units, stacks of small units, strong or weak, is just three lines of units to the other side until they break through the front to see them. By then they're already comitted to the attack. Can work nicely if you have units to burn and space to trade.
Multi-corps/Army combat seems to be beneficial if each HQ brings enough SUs to compensate for an often paltry CV loss. I wonder whether it works as intended.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
-Leon Trotsky
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
-36% from 3 12CV panzer divisions is 9 CV lost. Additional SUs won't give you so much, but of course additional artillery will always help to kill more enemy soldiers. All I know is that by using this tactics I haven't lost a single Soviet unit from December '41 up to July '43 and my army is now 9.2 million strong with 15000 AFVs.
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
Morvael your reference of no Soviet units lost is versus a human right? Impressive.
Overall very interesting discussion. Especially on why the multi line is needed (high German mobility).
Overall very interesting discussion. Especially on why the multi line is needed (high German mobility).
RE: A Question on Realism of Multi line Fronts
Yes, the carpet deployment of Russians is largely unhistorical. Multi line defences were not that uncommon for the Russians from 1942 onwards. The reality of 1941 pockets was somewhat less so about German superiority/mobility than it was about Russian inflexibility and lack of mobility. It wasn't about two armies manoeuvering and the Germans out manoeuvering the Russians. The Germans ran circles around largely static Russian deployments. WitE gives the Germans (actually both sides) a significantly higher capability for supply, logistics, and manoevering. This leads to higher tempo play, and somewhat forces the Russian player to adopt a more indepth (carpet or multi line) defence. For most of 1941, the Russians typically had a strong but thin forward defence line. From 1942 on they had a weaker front line but more in depth.
In some cases though, a carpet defence is what occurred historically, like on the Moscow approaches (from early 1942 into 43) and at Kursk in 43).
For WitE to encourage more historical Russian defences, offensive logistical abilites would have to be tuned downwards.
In some cases though, a carpet defence is what occurred historically, like on the Moscow approaches (from early 1942 into 43) and at Kursk in 43).
For WitE to encourage more historical Russian defences, offensive logistical abilites would have to be tuned downwards.